Out of idle curiosity I just ran a quick analysis of the six of us listed as Z220 (as of April 27, 2012) using 67 markers. Here are a few things that strike me as interesting:-- Eight is the minimum genetic distance (infinite allele mutation model); between members from Sweden and the Netherlands. They have a last shared Y-line ancestor within 510 years (50 percent probability, 30-year generations, FTDNA mutation rates); or up to 1260 years at 95 percent probability and McDonald rates.-- 27 is the maximum GD, between Dick Hulan and myself, both with UK ancestors. We have a last shared Y-line ancestor 1950 years ago under the first set of criteria and 3930 years under the second.-- The mean GDs of each of the six are 17, 17.6, 17.4, 25.6, 20.6, 21 Under the most conservative criteria analyzed, time to most recent common ancestor is a mean of 1362 years, or around about the year 650 AD. Different mutation models and/or probabilities pushes that date back to well before 0 BCE.

I don't claim any of this means much, other than again highlighting that this is a comparatively old group of cousins that has had a lot of time to stack up mutations. An average severance date of 650 (or, I think, more likely a few hundred years earlier) would certainly be prime time for much of the tribal discombobulation that transpired in northern Europe.

I don't claim any of this means much, other than again highlighting that this is a comparatively old group of cousins that has had a lot of time to stack up mutations. An average severance date of 650 (or, I think, more likely a few hundred years earlier) would certainly be prime time for much of the tribal discombobulation that transpired in northern Europe.

Indeed it is. The MRCA of the Z220 six is 4.3k!!. At the same time the MRCA of Z196xL176xM153xZ209-xZ220 (n=29)is 2.7k!!Z196xL175 starts as a group with a MRCA of 3.6k; alter exclusion of M153 (MRCA 1068) it is 3.9k; without z209 (MRCA 4.5k) is changes into 3.2k; leaving Z220 out it becomes 2k.All these MRCA do not include RecLOH events etc.Hans van Vliet

Here a Median Joining analysis after Star Contraction and Media Parsimony the Z220 six. We really need more Z209++ to test for Z220.I'm very unsure how the old age of Z220 will connect easely with M153 though the Z278 and Z214 nodes.Looking at Marko H's analysis it may come with a surprise.Hans van Vliet

The pairwise mismatch analysis of 67 STR markers of the Z196xL176 group shows a beautifull bell shape; indicative for a fast growing population.Excluding the M153 subpopulation makes the profile more rugged showing that a more steady state in the growth had occured.The Z220 clade itself has a very rugged pairwise mismatch profile: a stabilising society?Age en growth patterns hint an a more slightly horizontal development in the downstream clades of Z196; with M153 way down the stream.Hans

I've been very busy this week and haven't had a chance to respond to this thread, apart from brief notes to a couple of the guys off-list. But while Z220 is a small group, and this thread has a short list of posts, I want to insert a little commentary about the graphic Hans has posted, illustrating what Matt Winters refers to in the opening post: the very wide gap (or GD) between his haplotype and mine. He's at the lower left, I'm the yellow dot at the far right, in this diagram created by Hans:

It's easiest to see the wide range while this chart is limited to a few haplotypes, but at this point there seems little reason to doubt that Z220 includes the whole NS cluster (and a few of its outliers); so after further testing it will eventually become densely populated, to the point of visual clutter. By way of illustration, I'll list some of the haplotypes for which my yellow dot is more or less the proxy. This group was identified last spring by Lawrence Mayka, who had noticed a highly off-modal example (Richert) in his FTDNA Polish surname project. He found more of us, whose MDKA is not from present Poland, via Ysearch.

Coincidentally the most obvious marker for the group (because it's in the first panel, and FTDNA project results are sorted from left to right) is an apparent RecLOH event at DYS385ab -- and that marker isn't used in most of the analyses by Heinila, Walsh, Van Vliet, et al. Nevertheless it does make it easy to spot fellow members of my Yellow Dot Gang, in projects: after listing the 95% (or whatever it is) of project members who have 11,14 at that marker, we are the leftover 10,11 guys at the bottom. I assume that there is a much broader population in our neighborhood (the right branch on the illustration linked above), without this specific mutation. In any event, here are some surnames, kit numbers, and Ysearch IDs (in parentheses) for other group members. I'll list the assumed primary family once in boldface, with apparent relatives in italics. Some of these bear a different surname, not always representing NPE descent -- and in a few cases it could be one of the subsets, not the one I have in boldface, that represents the true original line. For the present, this represents my best guess:

Richert: f44479 (YZJSN) and f60159 (FKYRD). MDKAs from Gdansk area, including its hinterland to the southwest.

Hall: f78732, f45832, f134871, f33334 (Q595H), f50449, f50759, f83249, f121084 (92K6T). Probable relative Brown f33668 (DJVY3), and perhaps (9F3FV), a 12 marker kit. Some of these have MDKAs from the Severn river valley and upper Bristol Channel, with most in Gloucestershire and a couple from a bit farther north.

Reno: also Raynaud and Blanchard, N58749 (3G33K), f49713 and f79178. Have same MDKA in vicinity of Limoges, upper Loire valley.

Hulin: f212038, also Hulan f195834 (6UUM5) and Coats, f60943, share MDKA in piedmont VA/NC, but are believed to be traceable to Forest of Dean area, lower Wye river valley. Relatives include Travis f217955 (WHVUR), and a Batey whose (12 marker) kit number I can't find at the moment. Another possible relative is Dyer, f40295 (F7AEG).

As of this morning, the count is 13 tested, still 8 derived, still no Sallaberry, who I think will be positive.

Wish we had a better way of keeping up with the negatives on all SNPs, which are as helpful in their own way as the positives. Membership in the different FTDNA haplogroup projects should be opt-out instead of opt-in.

As of this morning, the count is 13 tested, still 8 derived, still no Sallaberry, who I think will be positive.

Wish we had a better way of keeping up with the negatives on all SNPs, which are as helpful in their own way as the positives. Membership in the different FTDNA haplogroup projects should be opt-out instead of opt-in.

I guess you are probably right. I had forgotten that Z216 is downstream of Z220, or is supposed to be. Sallaberry is Z216+, so if Z220 is upstream of Z216, then he should be positive for it. What threw me is that I saw that Rose, kit N86315, got a Z216- result, and he is Z220+. It threw me because I had Z220 and Z216 reversed on the draft tree in my mind (actually, I wasn't really sure where they were in relation to each other).

So, Sallaberry should be Z220+ by virtue of his Z216+ result, if the draft tree here is correct.

Far as I can see, he is M153+. His stated ancestry is definitely down in Basque Country. If, as expected, his Z220 comes in positive, it will be another data point for the idea that the R1b-NS group started in the north and migrated south.

But we'll need a lot more results before we can say that for semi-sure -- a few downstream SNPs showing up in future northern testees would cloud the picture. These might be alternatively explained as a back-migration in the Napoleonic era or some other time. But this whole possible debate is a few future forks down the road...

I've been at the Hanford site and B Reactor this week and haven't been keeping up with this, but I see the test count for 220 is at 27 tested, 14 positive. That's a big surge in ancestral. Anybody know what that's about?

No, but of the 14 derived, all but one of them are in the R-P312 and Subclades project, ten grouped under Z220 and three under Z278. (All of these 13 have also tested positive for Z209.) Sallaberry's Z220 test result still has not posted, but he already has several of the downstream SNPs derived.

Maybe the 14th derived example was an anonymous lab trial before the test went public? I don't know.

Btw my 68 to 111 upgrade posted over Friday night / Sat. morning, as did those of Rose and Zencker. If I'm not much mistaken, the Modal for Z220 in that range has shifted somewhat, in the direction of Rose and me, from what it was a few days ago -- and further from the P312 xL21 modal. Once it shifts, it's a little hard to reconstruct what it said before. But I had made some notes about my own off-modal values (and Hans van Vliet's) in these new (to me) higher numbered STRs; and today those notes are incorrect. Apparently the FTDNA software adjusts -- to an average, mean, median or something -- to determine any subclade's Modal. Then the colorized version of STR results will also adjust, to show distance up or down from the new, revised Modal.

Is that right? Does the Modal adjust automatically as new results post? In this case, I'm referring specifically to the Z220 Modal.

I'm not sure they notify you of a SNP result. Try looking at your Haplotype, from the My FTDNA page after you log in. The graphic won't show it, but the typed list of your STRs will (positive or negative), once you have a test result.

No. The Dobunni had long faded from memory by the time surnames were developed. The last (sort of) reference to them is on a mid-6th century tombstone from Tavistock in Devon reading DOBUNNI FABRI FILII ENABARRI (Of Dobunnus Fabrus, son of Enabarrus). Here the name has been given as a personal name.

The name Doble is from an Old French nickname "le doublel" meaning "a twin".

No. The Dobunni had long faded from memory by the time surnames were developed. The last (sort of) reference to them is on a mid-6th century tombstone from Tavistock in Devon reading DOBUNNI FABRI FILII ENABARRI (Of Dobunnus Fabrus, son of Enabarrus). Here the name has been given as a personal name.

The name Doble is from an Old French nickname "le doublel" meaning "a twin".

Well thanks for shooting me down into a pile of flaming rubble. Thanks alot. No, I figured that the name connection was a stretch. The most important aspect of my noticing the pattern is the fact that these five according to their string should not be related, yet they are all claiming the same ancestor and are all Z220 from the same area.